Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by IcyPatriot, Jun 30, 2019.
Worst Records Of Super Bowl Champions Through X Games
In 01 once TB12 started they went 14-3.
Makes it even more strange and odd ... love the memories of 2001 team.
The 01 team was loaded. Just reached puberty a little later than the other kids
They were the legion of boom way before the Seahawks ...
Week 10 loss was against the team they beat in Super Bowl....and their last loss of the season....
I don't find this to be surprising. If we're being realistic I'd say the 2001 Pats were one of the worst Super Bowl champs in at least the 21st century. I'm not saying they are THE worst, but one of the worst.
While many will take offense to that I don't think we should because in order to be on this list for consideration the team MUST BE A SUPER BOWL CHAMP! That's right, they were champs and as such should be celebrated for their accomplishments.
If we're looking at pure talent though, the 2001 team probably not at the standard of other Super Bowl champs. To their credit, they were a bunch of guys who played well together, got a few good bounces, and did just enough to win (and I am so thankful for that).
In the team's 3 playoff games, they had a total of three offensive touchdowns. I don't think we'll ever see anything like that again.
Again, not the worst, there were definitely a few teams that have them beat for that title (like the 2011 Giants). We should be ok with that though, they were still champs and I enjoyed the ride.
Since when have the NEP been about sheer talent? They are about playing well when it matters.
With that said teams don't win 14 of their final 17 games and allow 14ppg in the process with ****ty talent.
The only reason people consider that roster to be crap is because they weren't popular yet.
I knew it wouldn't be long before someone took offense, and you obviously are free to have a differing opinion BUT please don't misread my opinion.
Nowhere did I say they had a **tty roster or that it was crap.
No team will win a Super Bowl with a **tty roster. This team won a Super Bowl. The context of this conversation is comparing the greatest Super Bowl winning teams of all time.
They are all going to be really good teams that played well together, had talent, and made the plays they needed to make when it counted most........that's a given. But this conversation is comparing those teams, and even though they are all great there are some that are going to be greater than others.
Sure, it's picking straws..........like comparing 20 different super models. The "ugliest" super model is still going to be an absolute knock out and worthy of magazine covers.
Just in a realistic fashion, if I take the last 20 Super Bowl winning teams, I'm finding it hard to find 5 that I would rank worse than the 2001 Pats.
The 2011 Giants is a given, and while I want to say the 2007 Giants that may just be my bias playing with me.
The knee jerk reaction is to say the 2000 Ravens and 2015 Broncos because their offense was poor, but in each case their defense was just so absolute, other-worldy that I would give them the nod, too.
2010 Packers, 2012 Ravens, 2005 Steelers - perhaps worth a conversation and could go either way. Perhaps worth a conversation, but still not clear cut that they are worse than the 2001 Pats.
That's the beauty of sports debates, nothing is ever clear cut and worth a debate, but yes, my opinion on this is that they are still one of the bottom five Super Bowl winners from the past 20.
I agree, they had a good defense but the offense under TB hadn't blossomed yet.
Really? Your idea of beauty is like a pageant in Booger Hollow, Arkansas.
It's been quoted and sourced in this forum before: After winning SB36, BB said "I can't believe we won it with this team." I think BB was being realistic, too.
Realistic champs, though :fistpump:
A second reason would be the 2002 season was bad, and it seemed that the talent level was somewhere between the accomplishments of those two seasons.
2003 brought more depth and maturity, then 2004 added more pieces, including of course Corey Dillon. It's pretty clear that the sheer talent level rose from 2001 to 2004, by quite a lot.
But you're right in that NE wins are not often correlated to an overall roster talent advantage over the opposition. I would argue that the talent/versatility/contributions of NE players who you'd normally think of as being in the bottom 10 or 15 on the roster has consistently provided a clear advantage over other teams. Much more so than any difference in top-end talent, as judged by pro bowls, all league teams, etc.
I'm just happy that the 2001 team bought BB time to form the -real- Lion Voltron. That team was like, I dunno, Gladiator Voltron or Vehicle Voltron.
When Robert Weathers disagreed at least he put some football counterpoints to take into consideration.
If your attempt at humor was at least mixed in with some thoughtful debate I could at least respect you trying to lighten the mood, but on it's own just leaves me scratching my head that you felt this was a positive contribution to the conversation.
Ok, there's my old man rant. Perhaps your comment was 'a hit' with others and I should chill with my 'get off my lawn' mentality.
I agree, you can't go off names alone. Tom Brady was still more of a 'game manager' at that point and not the elite QB we've known him to be.
It would be like looking back at the 2011 team and thinking of Julian Edelman as the 'stud of today'.
My most favorite team by far....in all of sports, IMO.
That season was MAGICAL....coupled with me being able to score tickets for 3 games all season before the bandwagon got full....
Anyone I got any info on the 2001 Pats special teams rankings? I seem to remember Troy Brown coming up big on a few punt returns!
The 2001 team formed a brotherhood
i still get chills when I hear..."and now, choosing to be introduced as a team, the New England Patriots" Best superbowl TEAM ever....
Separate names with a comma.